Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=4877.0

May I ask how that was ever an attack on someone ? Just that I can avoid doing the same in the future, because at the moment, I totally fail to understand. 

[Saede Riordan]

From what I saw, you were interpreting Schere's post as passive-aggressively referring to an incident with you, stuff like this:

And since we are about more honest and diplomatic approaches, may I suggest that you directly call me for using the term you mention instead of remaining vague and passive-aggressive like that ? This, too, is difficult to cope with, and I hope you will understand. Just tell me what you think of it, with respect and calm words as you are able to do (shown here), instead of beating around the bush. This only helps people feel targeted and only gets frustrating/unto the nerves of the other.

very condescending and 'looking down your nose' I'm not saying that was the intent behind your words, but that was the meaning I got off reading them, was that it seemed to be putting down or trying to put down Schere for their post, based on the fact that you felt that Schere's post was an attack on you specifically.

However, Schere's post wasn't actually referring to you, if it was, she would have fallen victim to the same rule you have here. You interpreted something as an attack on you and responded in kind. In the future, maybe try reporting the post if you feel that's the case, instead of responding to it.

Just my thoughts, I'm not a mod here.

[Lyn Farel]

Condescending =/= personal attack.

Ascribing motives to other players by misunderstanding =/= personal attack.

I may be nitpicking of the wordings used by the moderation here, of course, but I still think it was a very bad choice of words, or either it targeted something I still fail to see.

I am not contesting the moderation action.

Also, I didn't took it as a personal attack against me. It took it as a remark that tried to be constructive and it would seem that by some coincidence (to which I have a hard time to subscribe btw) that Schere was actually referring to a "private mail". Then it would seem that we had a misunderstanding, but I do not see the point in raising ambiguous examples, quite targeted if you ask me, in a topic about generalities.

[Katrina Oniseki]

Saede is only guessing. That may not have been the reason.

[Silver Night]

Generally it is against the rules to ascribe negative motives to other players. It generally qualifies as flamebait. Calling someone's post passive-aggressive qualifies. In general, if you have a problem with something someone else posted, it would be better to either contact them privately, or report the post, as you think appropriate.

[Lyn Farel]

The post would not have been moderated if I reported it for passive-aggressiveness. Especially since you do not seem to be willing to moderate every post answering to my moderated post as it is usually the way it's done...

As I said I don't disagree with the moderation decision for my post here. Even if done out of a misunderstanding, it was indeed ascribing negative motives to someone else.

[Silver Night]

You are correct, in this specific situation it probably would not have been moderated (and in fact has not been moderated). While we do have a rule against people trying to slip trolling by moderation by not directly naming names (which is what I think you felt was what happened here), we reviewed the post and found it didn't rise to that level.

I was speaking generally, though - reporting or resolving something privately rather than posting accusations is the better way to go. Whether the post you are responding to qualifies for moderation or not, responding by calling the poster passive-aggressive will. (Just as in any other situation, if someone posts something that is flamebait, and you decide to respond by flaming the responsibility for your post isn't theirs, it is as always your own.)

[Lyn Farel]

I know. Ironic that someone that usually is so righteous about the respect of rules starts to break them for a change I guess ?

What am I supposed to do when a post sure is not going to be modded because it's too ambiguous ? Aren't that kind of posts usually modded due to said ambiguous side ? Do I just have to deal with it and eat the crow with it ?

[Silver Night]

You can follow these steps:

1) Report the post. Feel free to follow up the report a day or two later with a PM to a mod if no action takes place, and we will let you know if we are still deciding, or if we have decided not to act.

2) Contact the person in private. For example, in this case where we would indeed have decided not to moderate the post, you could have then privately contacted Schere and resolved what turned out to be a misunderstanding, instead of jumping to the conclusion she was being passive aggressive and deciding to accuse her of that publicly. You can also skip straight to step 2 if you think that the post in question won't be moderated.

If you do not want to do either of these things, then yes, your remaining option is to do nothing, or to post in a way that isn't against the rules.

[Lyn Farel]

Okay. It is true that I am pretty sure that it could have been the best solution with Schere.

I am not sure that would be the case for everyone though, in the case it presents itself one more time in the future...